If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It hasn't happened yet, but I think MLS will pass NHL and MLB in the next 15 years. Right now the league is meh, but football is rising in popularity and we should see others try to get better players in the US. At the same time American football is seeing a huge decrease in youth participation, were as sports in general are seeing huge gains, especially football. So our talent pool should be getting better in the next 15-20 years.

NFL for me. For a few reasons, namely that it takes place for relatively short period of the year, around 5 months. There's an acceptable amount of games, I can't keep up with MLB or NBA with their massive seasons and games every other day. I like the physicality of the NFL, and it's easily consumable as a highlights package. Plus, on TV, the atmosphere sounds electric at most games.

Furthermore, it's simply easier to follow in the UK than the other three. There's a great couple of shows on broadcast TV here, I also have the cable package to watch it on Sky Sports too. The Redzone program is a godsend, allowing you to follow all the games at once (and NO commercial breaks) for 7 hours straight.

I like the NBA when it's on, especially Playoff season, but I don't go out of my way to find it. NHL... I find too hard to follow (that puck is small man!). And MLB is similar to Cricket, usually lots of sitting down and waiting for something to happen.

Basketball is just a better sport. The NFL is dangerously close to WWE'ing themselves and having TOO much content. The NFL's popularity is based off of it being a big event. Because it's a big event each week, having the NFL only one day a week feels special. But adding a Thursday game takes away from it, especially because the Thursday games are terrible, the teams are not as prepared it can be really sloppy. Monday was a good exception, because it felt like playing on Monday was the game of the week, but now with Sunday Night, and Thursday Night, Monday Night Football has taken HUGE hits in the ratings. The NFL is in danger of having too much content.

Which sport, football or basketball? I know lots of Americans who follow football but have no idea what's going on. It's an event sport, people go for the experience. I played so I know the rules, but even now there are so many rule changes that I can't keep up. But honestly, the question I get so much while watching a football game with other Americans is, "what happened?" Why did that happen?" "What does that mean?" People love to just watch the game, see people get hit, and watch long throws run in for touchdowns. In between all of that, Americans just drink beer and eat chips and check their fantasy scores.

Basketball. I've been an NFL fan since I was a kid. Basketball was huge here too (Jordan, I suspect) and is coming back in a big way the last few years but I just don't get it. It looks fun to play but aside from that... I'm usually at a bit of a loss.

If you know football, you can understand basketball. It's very simple, get the ball in the basket... LMAO. You dribble the ball, so you can't hold it, but LeBron has perfected the travel and not be called. But it's really easy, even to play. The most dominate athlete can figure out the game and beat everyone, because it's not like football with all these weird techniques and unnatural movement.

Oh no, I understand the basics. I mean to look at it, it looks like a really simplistic game. But from the basics alone, I can't really understand the appeal. I assume there are nuances that I'm missing that draw people in.

I'm with Prime on this, I find Basketball a struggle to follow compared to American Football. Sure, I know the concept and I understand certain things you can and can't do, but there's so many fouls that to me appear to be nothing that are called on a basketball field I lose track. By all means, it helps that in the NFL you get a clear description of each foul from the referee itself, but the fouls appear clearer too. Facemask, holding, roughness, etc. In basketball it seems they just get in the way of an opposing player and sometimes its a foul and sometimes it isn't and I can never tell the difference.

Basketball is the WORST of the big four for a very simple reason...it has NOT been basketball since Michael Jordan.

Once Jordan came into the league, he revolutionized the global market of athletes and made basketball a true international commodity, BUT he also destroyed the actual game. Every kid growing up, playing in his driveway, park, gym or what ever thinks he is going to be the next Jordan. Meaning that all they do is dribble, dribble, dribble, try to go one on one with the defender and drive the lane. Every kid learns how to do that and nothing else. No one can shoot a 14 foot jump shot anymore, no one knows how to pass. Look at the past 10 years, there is NO team play, it is all one to three guys and the other 9 are fodder. LeBron James took a bunch of role players to the finals 5 times by himself!!!

If you want to see what I am talking about, watch any Lakers-Celtic finals from the 1980s. All 12 players on both teams knew how to play, pass, shoot and work as a team. Both teams had 8-9 Hall of Famers on their rosters.

Golden State is the anomaly, but they are an all star team, because the players run the league and force trades/signings etc.

LMAO... the NBA is making more money than ever and more popular than ever. And let me explain things.

Fouls are easy. Don't hit the other player in the act of shooting. Sometimes refs get too touchy when calling fouls, but this is not different than Zlatan flopping like a fish out of water playing football. Football and basketball both have the same amount of flopping and bad fouls. I do miss the 90's when it had to actually be a hard foul to be called a foul, but sports in general are getting softer.

Team basketball, I'd actually say today has better team playing than before. Also way better shooting. Players now have gone more European style of play, the big man like Shaq is dead, the versatile 7 footer who can guard and shoot 3's is in. Charging the lane at full force like LeBron is out, the Europe Step in the lane is in. Basketball is much more fundamentals and much more skill set now. LeBron is the best athlete on earth, but when he leaves he's the last of a dying breed. I have high hopes for Ben Simmons though, so we'll see. But the NBA has never been better and basketball has been THRIVING as a result.

Major League Baseball for me. Its been all 4 at different times and I feel like the NBA currently has the least amount of gameplay problems.. The talent might have too much control but the actual game has the least amount of issues..

Having said that, peak Baseball is my favorite. I love the stats, I love the fact that each at bat can be its own little story, I love the history of the game. I love that you can look like a regular dude and still be a success.. I love that you can fail 7 times out of 10 and still be a great hitter.

There's game issues I would fix but I know if they were fixed, it would just increase my love for the actual sport.

I love Football too but I don't like the the way the safety elements have been added to the game cause I feel its hurt the actual play. I'm not a monster but there's a reason flag football isn't wildly popular.

Hockey is also a sport i love but also one I struggle to understand at times..and feel like too often the grace of the sport is replaced by a grind.

So yeah, current NBA is probably my favorite to watch right now but Baseball I love more.

LMAO... the NBA is making more money than ever and more popular than ever. And let me explain things.

Fouls are easy. Don't hit the other player in the act of shooting. Sometimes refs get too touchy when calling fouls, but this is not different than Zlatan flopping like a fish out of water playing football. Football and basketball both have the same amount of flopping and bad fouls. I do miss the 90's when it had to actually be a hard foul to be called a foul, but sports in general are getting softer.

Team basketball, I'd actually say today has better team playing than before. Also way better shooting. Players now have gone more European style of play, the big man like Shaq is dead, the versatile 7 footer who can guard and shoot 3's is in. Charging the lane at full force like LeBron is out, the Europe Step in the lane is in. Basketball is much more fundamentals and much more skill set now. LeBron is the best athlete on earth, but when he leaves he's the last of a dying breed. I have high hopes for Ben Simmons though, so we'll see. But the NBA has never been better and basketball has been THRIVING as a result.

Fouls are easy. Don't hit the other player in the act of shooting. Sometimes refs get too touchy when calling fouls, but this is not different than Zlatan flopping like a fish out of water playing football. Football and basketball both have the same amount of flopping and bad fouls. I do miss the 90's when it had to actually be a hard foul to be called a foul, but sports in general are getting softer.

To be honest that was the one foul I already understood! Blocking is allowed, so long as no contact made on the shooter. And I understand goal tending, mainly thanks to NBA Jam for the N64!

It's the fouls that I find usually take place in the 4th quarter when the losing team try to break the play up. Usually while dribbling, there's some hand movement or some blocking and the ref blows for a foul. However the defence blocks the path to the basket around the 3pt area with no apparent foul for most of the game. Is it a case of moving into a position to block a player that causes the foul or a specific area of contact? No idea.

To be honest that was the one foul I already understood! Blocking is allowed, so long as no contact made on the shooter. And I understand goal tending, mainly thanks to NBA Jam for the N64!

It's the fouls that I find usually take place in the 4th quarter when the losing team try to break the play up. Usually while dribbling, there's some hand movement or some blocking and the ref blows for a foul. However the defence blocks the path to the basket around the 3pt area with no apparent foul for most of the game. Is it a case of moving into a position to block a player that causes the foul or a specific area of contact? No idea.

A bit confused by what you mean when you say blocking the area. In the NBA now, you're not supposed to put your hands on a player trying to defend him, that's hand checking and its not allowed anymore.. So like if a player is dribbling and the defender has hands on the player's hip, that's a foul... but if you're not touching the player and he charges into you, while you're in defending position, that's what is called a charge..

For the three point line, teams try to defend that line by putting defenders in places to run the players with the ball off the line... but you can't really block that area entirely.

Ultimately though, every game is different and unfortuntely, sometimes bad calls are made.

A bit confused by what you mean when you say blocking the area. In the NBA now, you're not supposed to put your hands on a player trying to defend him, that's hand checking and its not allowed anymore.. So like if a player is dribbling and the defender has hands on the player's hip, that's a foul... but if you're not touching the player and he charges into you, while you're in defending position, that's what is called a charge..

Right, I kinda get what you mean. Earlier, by blocking I actually just meant blocking a shot, i.e. jumping up with the shooter.

What i meant by blocking the area, is the team defending, from a non-educated view mind you, appear to position themselves around the 3 point line, with perhaps one or two on the paint covering the inside. I think in soccer the analogy would be zonal marking, each player on the defence protects a certain area of the field. The alternative is man to man marking, which is where each member of the defence has their allocated player they must defend against, regardless of where they are on the field.

I guess with the more confined area of a basketball court, sometimes I as a viewer get a bit confused as to what happened when refs signal for a foul. I've had a brief look at the rules and I think my confusion stems from the difference between charging and blocking; I can't seem to tell the difference between the two in real time. This video explains it pretty well, but during an actual NBA match, I can't see the intricacies of it.

Right, I kinda get what you mean. Earlier, by blocking I actually just meant blocking a shot, i.e. jumping up with the shooter.

What i meant by blocking the area, is the team defending, from a non-educated view mind you, appear to position themselves around the 3 point line, with perhaps one or two on the paint covering the inside. I think in soccer the analogy would be zonal marking, each player on the defence protects a certain area of the field. The alternative is man to man marking, which is where each member of the defence has their allocated player they must defend against, regardless of where they are on the field.

I guess with the more confined area of a basketball court, sometimes I as a viewer get a bit confused as to what happened when refs signal for a foul. I've had a brief look at the rules and I think my confusion stems from the difference between charging and blocking; I can't seem to tell the difference between the two in real time. This video explains it pretty well, but during an actual NBA match, I can't see the intricacies of it.

Okay now I understand, I can explain a bit. Basketball used to be played more in the post area (the paint) thru the center, you would toss it inside, and the Center would make moves and score or pass it out... In today's game, The guy the ball will typically drive the lane and look to kick out to the three point lane. Every defender has a man they have to guard and since most wing players without the ball are either by the three point line or cutting to the basket, that's where the defenders will be. Plus, a defender can't be inside the paint standing still forever... or its illegal defense. I think its a 3 second call. Hope that helps.

Also blocking/charge call is hard to get right (and is not always called right) But actually pretty simple. Every defender has the right to their position however if they're moving, and the offensive player hits them, then that's a block. If the defender is set, hands up usually or in guarding position, then the offensive player driving the lane can't run them over... or its a charge.

- This happened last year. Marcus Smart is one of the best at drawing charges.

One thing about blocking vs. charging fouls that's improved is adding the circle under the rim. Before, in the 90's, many fouls were just all called blocking fouls because the ref didn't know where that line was. Theoretically, there was a zone under the basket that was considered too far under, and an offensive player could just drive the lane, dunk over a guy and not get a charge. Here is Shaq just powering over a defender in the 90's.

Shaq was called for a technical because of the push after the play, but was never called for the charge. That's because the defender was in the dotted line. Had he stayed out of the dotted line, and the same contact happened, Shaq would have been called for a charge, which actually happened a lot once defenders evolved more in the 2000's. That line under that basket was added to the court in 1997. Before that, it was theorized that this zone exist, but it was never defined. So a player like Shaq would run over a defender further away from the basket, then with the player on the floor, just step in the lane and dunk. It was actually more confusing then than now. But because that line was added, more charges started to get called, or at least it felt like more charges were called. Now taking a charge has almost become a needed skill for defenders. In the 90's, very few players took this part of the game seriously. I remember when the Lakers drafted Derek Fisher and he took charges in the lane, it was different, and made him almost seem like the smartest player on the Lakers. Now it's become a stat.

It hasn't happened yet, but I think MLS will pass NHL and MLB in the next 15 years. Right now the league is meh, but football is rising in popularity and we should see others try to get better players in the US. At the same time American football is seeing a huge decrease in youth participation, were as sports in general are seeing huge gains, especially football. So our talent pool should be getting better in the next 15-20 years.

Maybe not its not gonna be any time soon. MLS has to be THE premier football league for that to happen.

This happened last year. Marcus Smart is one of the best at drawing charges.

Cheers for the info. I guess there appears to be an analogy for soccer I hadn't considered then, the act of drawing fouls. The consensus for most soccer fans is that drawing a foul has a certain negative connotation. You want your player to beat the man, not look for a foul; the thinking being that if you stay on your feet when an opposing player tries to foul you, they'll likely be on the floor (or at least out of position) and you have the possibility of creating a chance. Neymar Jr is a notorious diver (which is different) but he does draw fouls better than anyone else.

Cheers for the info. I guess there appears to be an analogy for soccer I hadn't considered then, the act of drawing fouls. The consensus for most soccer fans is that drawing a foul has a certain negative connotation. You want your player to beat the man, not look for a foul; the thinking being that if you stay on your feet when an opposing player tries to foul you, they'll likely be on the floor (or at least out of position) and you have the possibility of creating a chance. Neymar Jr is a notorious diver (which is different) but he does draw fouls better than anyone else.

it can be seen as negative thing in basketball as well, and is if the defender is considered to flop but unfortunately, the only way one gets a charge call is if they go do down... like if a player goes into your chest, if you don't go down, then you won't get the call, ever. So a guy like Smart, who is actually a great defender who's in good position more often than not, can sometimes be viewed as a flopper..

I imagine less issue is taken with basketball because of 2 things. One, points aren't as valued. If you get fouled in the NBA, you get free throws but its not usually a game breaker like say a PK off a foul in soccer. Also, and this is my american view of things, but when I've watched Soccer, it seems players over exaggerate (dive) to get a call in a way that is so over the top, like a stretcher coming out for them.. Whereas in the NBA, you're not rolling around on the floor in agony if you flop for a call.

That's very true; it's an aspect that has come into European football in the last 20/25 years whereby the players are conning the ref. It's more acceptable especially in South America, thus with the influx of foreign players into the European leagues, it's almost become second nature and now even European players do it now. There is a case to be made that referees don't call fouls unless the player goes down, and there is an element of truth to that, but in the age of instant replays, I loathe seeing a player fake an injury just to try to get a bigger punishment for the opposing player. It really does piss me off, even when it's my team. Hopefully VAR could eventually eradicate it.

Maybe not its not gonna be any time soon. MLS has to be THE premier football league for that to happen.

Actually, I don't think it would take much for MLS to pass MLB and especially NHL. Take a city like Seattle. Now this is in part because baseball has way more games, but MLS is getting more people per game than MLB in Seattle. In 2017, 43,666 was the average attendance by the Seattle Sounders FC, where as the Seattle Mariners were averaging 26,363. Now football is having a hard time catching on in some markets, like Dallas, Denver, or for some reason Columbus, Ohio. (I only say that because i have NO idea why Columbus has a team.) But at the same time, MLB is over 100 years more established, yet markets like Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Miami struggle to draw 20,000 people per game. Now I'm not saying MLS will past the NFL or NBA, but I do think they will pass MLB and NHL. Baseball is dying a very slow and painful death, and at these rates, football will pass baseball as the preferred American summer sport. Hockey I think will always have it's nitch audience. I live in Minnesota, the state of hockey. Minnesota United FC already gets more people per game (20,583 to 19,071) than the Wild. Now it's apples and oranges since the Wild are basically at capacity every night, but I could easily see the Minnesota United FC being as important in the summer as the Wild are in the winter in this market. And in a market like Atlanta, which the NHL has tried and failed over and over again, MLS is drawing 48,200 people PER GAME! The more successful football becomes in the US, the more talent MLS can attract and it becomes more likely that MLS will pass MLB and NHL.

Now you said if MLS becomes THE premier football league... LMAO... not happening in the next 15-20 years, and honestly I'd hate to see a league with the word soccer in it become THE premier football league in the world. With that said, if MLS, or whatever it'd be rebranded, becomes THE premier league, that's when you'd see it pass NBA and NFL. If the US got that into football, that we could host the premier league in the world, then MLB would have already pass NBA and NFL, which I don't see happening. Even as the NFL shoots itself in every limb each and every year.

Let’s remember there’s a lot less games in MLS than the other sports plus tickets are cheaper (maybe comparable to baseball but not the NHL). MLS isn’t pulling in even close to the amount of revenue the NHL does. NHL is fifth in the world. (Premier League and NBA fight for third, with MLB second and NFL first). MLS is like 18.

The thing with attendances too, at least in the case of the NHL, is that they're indoor arenas. I may be wrong, but these tend to have no more than 20 maybe 25 thousand capacity. A stadium on the other hand, double the figure at least. To fully measure the popularity of a team, you may have to look more into percentages than actual attendance.

The revenue question is an interesting one. I had a look at a few figures and the MLS brought in roughly the same revenue as the English championship (our second division, kinda like minor league if that makes sense) in 2017. Was a bit surprised how far ahead the NFL was, but goes to show the power of the EPL in 4th place considering the size of the two countries.

As a Englishman, it's not as if I can properly judge this, but I can't see the MLS overcoming NBA or NFL, not in my lifetime anyhow. MLB it could potentially given time, but in all likelihood it will remain as number 5. However, I can see the "big 4" becoming the "big 5", as there's so much upside. Some people forget but the big European countries England, Spain, France, Italy, etc... Have had decades and decades of history behind their leagues. MLS is still very much in it's infancy and it will be a long road ahead before it's anywhere near the same level.

As I said, I donít see MLS passing NFL or NBA. But I do see them passing NHL and MLB. No one plays or watch baseball anymore. So itís just a matter of time. Plus football has a much younger audience than MLB.

I dunno man, I caught a few games while I was in the States and the stands looked full, almost everyone walking around had a team cap on, and there were plenty of people paying a load of money to do the tour of Fenway. I'm guessing this has to be more the case in some markets than others, no?

I do agree with you about relative age and demographics of the soccer crowd against the baseball and hockey crowds making a difference though.

I would have got back in to the discussion about basketball above but honestly I'm not even sure how to go about it. As I say, the other sports I understand how they work. Basketball seems like a bunch of guys throwing the ball back and forth and then it's a bigger deal when someone misses than scores. I'm sure that's my ignorance and that there is more tactics and strategy going on, but I've not been able to discern it in the way I can with, say, soccer.

It's all plays, the passing in a game are plays that a team runs. Here is Larry Bird explaining the pick and roll, which is the most basic play in the NBA. And through one simple play, you get 5 different plays that can happen.

Now I like to explain the triangle. I'm a Laker fan, but I also watched a lot of the Bulls in the 90's. So both the Bulls of the 90's and Kobe's Lakers ran the triangle. The triangle was based off a 3 person passing triangle, and through one play you can have about 10-15 different situations that can result in a basket. Also, both the Lakers and Bulls ran different triangles.

In the 90's, the Bulls ran the triangle through Michael Jordan. Jordan played the "center" position, meaning he was in the center of the offense. Now Jordan was a shooting guard, but in the triangle the shooting guard waited at the top of the key to drive the lane. Instead, Phil Jackson put Jordan at the "center" because he wanted Jordan to have the ball at all times instead of waiting for the ball. The actual center would wait by the basket in case of an easy pass for layup, or rebounding. Dennis Rodman would usually play this position. So Pippen would throw the ball into Jordan, Jordan would back the ball in, usually with Pippen "on the wing", meaning he's outside the 3 point line closer to the baseline, and Kerr at the top of the key above the 3-point line. Jordan would then look at passing lanes, he'd usually back the ball in, and see if anyone was open. If not, he'd usually make a move, spin around and hit that fade away jumper he was always known for. here

The Lakers ran the triangle through their tradition center, either Shaq or later Pau Gasol. Now Gasol was the PERFECT triangle center, because he was a basketball smart, pass first center. Fisher would bring the ball up, and pass right to Gasol. Gasol would then dribble the ball, Kobe usually in the wing, Fisher on top of the key, Odom usually by the basket for garbage pick up, and Ron Artest on the wing opposite of Kobe Bryant. This gave the Lakers huge advantages in match ups. Often Gasol would kick the ball out, sometimes to Fisher, who'd dribble, then once he got the attention of the defense, since Fisher was a deadly 3-point shooter, he'd pass the ball to Kobe, who was usually only single covered by then, Kobe would drive the lane and dunk, lay up, or isolate the defender to set up a mid-range jumper.

Most teams today run some combination of the Princeton offense (basically the triangle, but focused on all players passing the ball instead of a three man passing triangle) and pick and rolls. There are a lot of high picks today (meaning picks at the top of the key) to set up point guard 3-point shooting. Also, the success of the Spurs have led to teams teaching, "the extra pass." Meaning, if you do a pick and roll, and everyone on the court realizes it, and you have the defense defend it well, then just pass out and find an open man to see who is open. If 2 people are guarding Kobe, that means it's 3 defenders against the other 4 players, meaning someone is not defended. In that case, pass to the person with no defender.

Seems ironic that you used a video from the 1980's when basketball was still basketball. Now it is all 1 main guy, 2 good guys, and other guys on the floor taking up space.

I'd disagree. I think that generalization was perfect about 10 years ago. But now offensives have really turned up "team basketball" in response to the success of the Spurs over the last 20 years. Also if you notice, this video was 2 on 2 basketball, meaning even in your generalization, it would work because you're assuming 3 players are okay, when this video only assumes 2 players are worthy of handling the ball.

It doesn't matter Powder's feelings on the game today when if i'm assuming correctly, that's not why Prime doesn't 'get' basketball. I don't understand that myself. Every sport has certain goals and rules attached. Basketball you put the ball in the hole or defend from teams doing that lol.

I'm shocked baseball is winning! It's definitely my favorite sport but I thought i'd be in the minority. There's something about baseball that just hits on a special level with me that the other sports don't touch. Football for me is a close 2nd and basketball is a solid 3rd.